2017 (2) TMI 1481 - AT - Income Tax

Estimation of income - bogus purchases - CIT(A) applying estimated net profit @ 12.5%. on the above transactions - HELD THAT - As assessee fairly agreed that a reasonable estimate of profit should be estimated in view of the fact that neither manufacturing of moulds nor sale of moulds is under dispute. According to us, assessee had made purchase but from grey market. We find that the similar finding were given by the CIT(A) that assessee might have purchased extra profit on account of saving of sales tax and other tax. Even by purchasing from grey market, assessee might have save some profits and profit of the assessee has depicted in the above chart which is minimum at the rate of 3.90% and maximum of 9.85%. We are of the view that a reasonable estimate on profit rate at 10% will suffice the issue. Accordingly, we direct the AO to estimate the profit rate @ 10% on the above purchases and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Dispute over estimation of profit rate on bogus purchases made by the assessee.
- Allegation of engaging in bogus purchases during assessment year 2008-09.
- Lack of documentary evidence to support genuine purchases.
- Application of gross profit rate on the disputed purchases.
- Disagreement between the Revenue and the assessee regarding the nature of purchases and their authenticity.

Analysis:
1. The primary issue in the case revolved around the estimation of profit rate on the alleged bogus purchases made by the assessee. The CIT(A) estimated a profit rate of 12.5% on the disputed purchases, considering the nature of the business and the profitability trend. The Revenue challenged this estimation, arguing that the purchases were bogus and should not be allowed as expenses. The assessee, on the other hand, contested the application of the gross profit rate on the entire addition made by the Assessing Officer.

2. The case involved allegations of engaging in bogus purchases during the assessment year 2008-09, which were detected during a survey conducted by the Income Tax department. The assessee was asked to prove purchases amounting to Rs. 60,64,104 made from various parties. However, the assessee failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence such as purchase orders, bills, and inspection reports to validate the authenticity of the transactions.

3. The Assessing Officer added the entire amount of the disputed purchases to the assessee's income, attributing them to hawala entry providers. The CIT(A) partially confirmed the addition but estimated the undisclosed profit at Rs. 7,58,013, representing 12.5% of the alleged purchases. The CIT(A) considered factors like the nature of business and the utilization of consumables in manufacturing while arriving at this estimation.

4. Both the Revenue and the assessee raised multiple grounds challenging the CIT(A)'s decision. The Revenue argued that the purchases were bogus, as confirmed by the Managing Director of the company during survey proceedings. The assessee contended that the purchases were genuine and that the application of a profit rate on the entire amount was unjustified.

5. The Tribunal, after hearing the arguments from both sides, analyzed the profit and net profit ratios provided by the assessee for different years. Considering that the manufacturing and sale of moulds were not in dispute, the Tribunal concluded that a reasonable estimate of profit at 10% on the disputed purchases would suffice. Therefore, the Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

6. In conclusion, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to estimate the profit rate at 10% on the disputed purchases, acknowledging the need for a fair and reasonable assessment in light of the business operations and profitability trends. The decision balanced the interests of both parties while addressing the concerns raised regarding the authenticity of the purchases.